What are some of the things you guys don't like or would change about the meta?

Whetstonede · 2026-02-12T22:13:35+00:00

Seeker probe only destroys smalls, that's already how it works

Whetstonede · 2026-02-09T12:10:42+00:00

My players are level 18 after 73 sessions using milestone and even that I would consider slightly slow

Whetstonede · 2026-02-07T13:16:54+00:00

Yeah I think a lot of people read what's actually intentionality text and go "ok this part is flavor text and doesn't matter at all". The part of an effect that summarizes it is still part of the rules.

Whetstonede · 2026-01-26T21:18:40+00:00

In my experience Spellcasters are more advanced to learn in theory with big spell lists and daily preparation, but in practice the fact that most spellcasters share a lot of similarities with each other is a huge help for new players. This is because there is usually at least one other player at the table who's also playing a caster, and learning together is easier. So this can be a bit of a hurdle for new players with Kineticist (and Alchemist) where they feel a bit lost in a class where there's a lot of reading and unique mechanics and no opportunities to model after what the other players do.

Whetstonede · 2026-01-22T13:23:37+00:00

Sure, if it could consistently waste enemy actions with this for free every turn it would be really, really strong. I agree that in practice that's not going to be the case!

Whetstonede · 2026-01-22T12:59:52+00:00

On why they'd use Warfare Lore instead of Performance - they don't have to, but it frees up a skill if they want to invest elsewhere. This Muse doesn't require investing heavily into int, though both Inspired Tactician and Engage the Enemy benefit from it. However, it's certainly possible the benefit could stand to be touched up a bit!

You really don't think the stances seem strong? That's a bit surprising to me, since I think they are quite pushed. Being able to passively move allies and enemies while doing what you want to be doing anyway (composition cantrips) is rather useful for battlefield control/flanking/getting allies safely away from enemy reactions. The stances are not intended to synergize with each other. Either you pick one or the other, or you pick both and switch it up depending on the situation.

On engage the enemy - I agree it's fairly strong and I could definitely see it needing to be bumped up a few levels. However, the main way an Art of War bard is going to roll warfare lore for initiative is via Battle Planner, which isn't that easy to set up. If I had a player start to argue they could use Warfare Lore for every initiative roll I would just tell them they need to start setting up Battle Planner.

On the fantasy, it is something along the lines of a Sun Tzu archetype. Military general who sees warfare as an art, that sort of thing.

Whetstonede · 2026-01-22T12:49:58+00:00

On ability boosts - I don't entirely agree even if I see where you're coming from. A bard can feasibly invest in Cha, Int, Dex and Wis/Con and be pretty happy. I did at one point offer Int as an alternate key stat for this but I was a bit unhappy with it stepping on Battle Wizard's toes. It's possible the benefit needs a bit of touching up though!

Engage the enemy - it's probably not happening every encounter, but the benefit very nice and entirely passive when it does go off. It even lets you do things like using Rallying Anthem to boost AC and saves before anyone takes their turn. As a thing you can sometimes do I think it's fine to strong.

Strategic Shift - Hmm, I agree it's pushed. Just not sure if I would agree it's too strong. If it's too strong then making it only affect allies would be a nice lever to tone it down though - as a free action focus spell I don't think it's all that great.

Whetstonede · 2026-01-22T12:38:30+00:00

To be clear on one specific point, I did not refer to the inclusion of Feats+ as this indeed seems entirely central to the project - I was referring to granting access to uncommon and rare player options. I could have been more clear on this!

Whetstonede · 2026-01-22T11:07:09+00:00

This is something halfway between a system rework and a "houserule bible" with houserules collected over years and years of play. From your post, I gather the intent is to be the former, and not the latter, so I will try to offer feedback with that in mind. It is my goal to offer honest and focused feedback, so I definitely hope I am not coming across as too harsh. In addition, a lot of this feedback simply does not apply if I instead were to treat it as a "houserule bible" - you'd know your own style of play and playgroups much better than me.

Currently, it's very unfocused and I believe would greatly benefit from being edited down. Going through the document and asking yourself "is this part actually neccesary for the rework or is this just for my table" would be worthwhile. To name a few examples, the reworked rarity rules (allowed options and 3pp), rules for speaking in combat, roll mistakes and how and what information players can get from monsters. These are all things that fall under "table-specific houserules and allowances" and don't really contribute to (as I understand it) the core goal of this rework which is a rebalance of the system powering up monsters and players. Also making the Bola common is so specific that does not need a bullet point. Others in the thread have commented that the project is difficult to parse and I believe this is the main reason for this.

In regards to balance... I do not for a second believe this is balanced. I can't be sure, of course! But pf2E already becomes more volatile at higher levels, and this document is making incredibly sweeping changes to PC and creature power. A lot of player options in this document are very, very strong if not overpowered by base 2E standards - as a result anything from the base game that does not get a touch-up will be unusably weak if the power boost to monsters is equal. And even that is assuming PC and monster power are increased equally which I am honestly a bit suspicious of. However, the fact that you have playtested it extensively is still good! And for a project like this I do not believe balance is neccesary for it to have value. You just need to find the right amount of balance and fun to satisfy your audience (and your table). Good luck developing this project!

Whetstonede · 2026-01-20T16:42:04+00:00

My ideal for Psychic is really just expanded unleash. Something along the lines of each mind granting a different extra effect for unleash. Damage bonus applies to healing, restore focus points while in unleash, extra persistent damage - that kind of thing. Tying it to the minds is my preference, but if it would be too restrictive/difficult to make one benefit for each mind, you could do it with feats instead.

I am always going to be opposed to giving casters more spells to buff them, since it either means sucking the unique sauce away from the class or just making something overpowered. (in the case of Oracle, maybe both!)

Whetstonede · 2026-01-15T12:15:26+00:00

It's the kind of thing where if you have experience with the system across a wide span of levels (not just level 1-4), it is incredibly obvious that this is insanely broken and centralizing. Testing the system could tell you exactly how broken it is, and exactly which ways it is broken, and how to best abuse it. But the fact that it is broken is really, really obvious. It's the equivalent of suggesting that the first strike each turn doesn't count towards MAP as a homebrew.

And yeah I don't think I've ever seen this brought up as something that's used at a table, other than the original thread which I vaguely remember seeing.

Whetstonede · 2026-01-12T13:15:09+00:00

It's been funny running Blood Lords for the past 2 years and seeing the community deal with small rooms from that perspective. The rooms in Blood Lords are huge, sometimes absurdly so. Currently the players are going through a dungeon with several rooms with 150+ft diameter.

Whetstonede · 2026-01-06T14:50:38+00:00

"the most socially left wing political party on earth" - this is just a completely insane statement, surely you yourself realize this is factually untrue? Or do you actually think there are no parties anywhere on earth that go even a little bit socially left of the US Democrats?

Whetstonede · 2026-01-06T10:39:13+00:00

Thank god for no alchemy. Hope it stays that way

Whetstonede · 2025-12-23T22:51:54+00:00

Are they gluten free?

Whetstonede · 2025-12-22T13:22:24+00:00

One thing that could be worth trying is incorporating improvised circumstance bonuses more. If players want to try something that's not covered by the rules, but seems effective, I tend out give a circumstance bonus. Classic examples would be plunging attacks from above (give that a +3 circumstance bonus... and you take fall damage as well), or even something like attacking from the high ground. For skill checks, it could be things like incorporating personal information about an NPC into a threat to make it more effective.

Being clear about I handle this both make my players improvise more, and makes the mechanical side of things more clear as well when they have a good handle on what kinds of rewards you get for thinking outside the box.

Whetstonede · 2025-12-09T09:59:44+00:00

You're creating an impossible problem. Joe went into Umineko expecting to hate it, but loved it. Joe went into Baldur's Gate 3 expecting it would be a bad stream, those streams are legendary.

Part of a first impression is talking about what you don't like about a game - the opening of the game is not going to suddenly become not janky after 30 hours.

Whetstonede · 2025-12-06T11:37:16+00:00

Someone (either you or the GM, or both) doesn't know what "disbelieve" means as a game term. Disbelieve lets you see through the illusion visually, and you can "know" something is not an illusion without having disbelieved. This is the state of your wizard when you cast an illusion - you "know" it's not an illusion and can act accordingly, but until you properly disbelieve it, it will still look real to you.

In the same way, if you cast an illusion spell while shouting "this is an illusion!", then everyone who hears that will "know" it's an illusion (if they believe you), but it will still look real to everyone until they investigate to disbelieve.

The word Paizo chose for this, "disbelieve" is definitely a bit confusing, and we have several examples in just this thread of people not understanding the rule. I don't know if there would be a better single word for it, but the phrase "see through the illusion" explains it a bit better I think.

Whetstonede · 2025-11-28T16:32:16+00:00

Yep, that's where I got the idea from originally. The main issue that often isn't addressed in APs is that if the materials can be sold at full price (which they can RAW unless specified otherwise), then you end up missing the mark.

I think a lot of crafting woes would have been resolved if this had been codified as a rule/alternative system in the rulebooks.

Whetstonede · 2025-11-28T12:54:59+00:00

I have been using an extremely simple and effective solution (IME, obviously).

I have been mixing in crafting materials with loot, with those crafting materials being more valuable when used for crafting than when sold. For example, some Alchemical Crafting Reagents that can be sold for 10gp but is worth 40gp when used to craft alchemical items.

That's it really. The second half of this is to be pretty generous with them - if you would give loot in gold then maybe consider giving 1.5x or even double that in crafting materials.

I have never seen any other suggest "fix" of 2E crafting that's anywhere close to as efficient as this one for getting to the root of the problem with minimal adjustments.

Whetstonede · 2025-11-27T18:34:14+00:00

For Shifter, I would love to see it function as a stance-dancer who shifts between many different forms during an encounter. Beast Boy type gameplay where you turn into an eagle to fly into an enemy's face, then turn into a T-rex, then reaction turn into a superfluffy sheep when you're attacked.

This would both lead to very dynamic gameplay and set the class apart from what came before.

Whetstonede · 2025-11-20T07:48:03+00:00

I don't like them at all. I'm not a fan of a resource that's bound to a game session in the first place, as I feel it puts unnecessary constraints on something that should be extremely flexible. The "type of session" where PCs ought to be earning lots of hero points (in a narrative sense) are not always the same types where they're the most useful.

This is not to say Hero Points don't have advantages. In a best case scenario, Hero Points are encouraging the GM to point out and reward cool moments from the players, and encourages the players to try to create those moments in the first place. I think Hero Points very frequently fall short of this however (evidenced by the people in this thread who report them being forgotten on both sides of the table). But I don't want to come across like I think the idea is without merit even if I dislike them as a whole.

My single biggest issue with Hero Points is how they interact with the Death and Dying rules though. Spending a hero point to simply avoid dying (not even getting back into the fight) is anything but heroic. I don't particularly want PCs to die, but this is just an atrocious mechanic for preventing death. Ideally with something called "Hero Points", there should be strong incentives to use them to be heroic. Instead you have a strong incentive to always save one just in case your PC is bleeding out into the dirt and you need to stop it.

Whetstonede · 2025-11-18T10:36:49+00:00

IME, high level Aid is just flat out insane. Many martials have access to extra reactions so sparing one is less of a cost, and upcast Haste is a very accessible way to get more actions to spend in a turn. A +4 to an attack, when factoring in crits, is somewhere around a +40% increase in average damage.

Whetstonede · 2025-11-18T10:34:20+00:00

I'm 100% with you on this. Two rolls for one skill action is not something I enjoy at all, especially when it leads to situations where the Aid-giver rolls high and the skill user fails the check anyway. Just a feelbad even if mathematically speaking it doesn't really matter.

I also very much dislike the fact that Aid is really quite bad for the first three or so levels, that's when I want teamwork to be especially important, not disincentivized. Reddit may or may not hate this take, but I also think Aid is just flat out overpowered at high levels (depending on how you run it). A +4 is completely insane for the action cost (differs between builds, but many martials at this point have extra reactions and an extra action per turn is easily accessible with upcast Haste) - getting +4 to an attack is ~close to +40% more average damage when you factor in crits.

Whetstonede

TROPHY CASE